Madhya Pradesh Court December 1995 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Chandrakant Soni Vs. Mukesh Sahu and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-1995
Reported in: I(1996)ACC476; 1996ACJ575; AIR1996MP184; 1996(0)MPLJ503
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. (On I. A. No. 4763/95) Shri S. Patwa for Appellant. Shri S. V. Dandvate for Respondent No. 4. Other respondents are absent. None present for them.2. This application has been preferred for bringing the legal representatives of deceased claimant on record. During the course of argument it has been noticed by the learned counsel for the L.Rs. of deceased claimant that there has been delay in making the prayer for bringing the L.Rs. on record. He prays for condoning the said delay in view of recent amendment in provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M. V. Act for convenience). Shri Dandvate, counsel for respondent No. 4 also admitted that there has been recent amendment in the provisions of M.V. Act whereby time limit of six months which was in existence previously has been removed in respect of filing of fresh application for getting the compensation. There cannot be any debate on the point that provisions of M.V. Act are benevolent and ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramesh Malik,
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-1995
Reported in: [1996]218ITR334(MP)
A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. The applicant (Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal), has filed these six reference applications as noted above, proposing three common questions of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), to state the case and refer the questions of law as extracted below, arising out of the order dated October 30, 1990, passed by the Tribunal in the appeals ;'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not misdirected itself in ignoring the show-cause notice served under Section 274 of the Income-tax Act/10 of C. D. Act by merely relying on the service of subsequent notice ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty instead of remitting it back to the Assessing Officer when the statutory notices were validly served and adequate opportunity was given to the assessee ? (iii) Whether, on the ...
Mahaveer Singh Tomar (Dr.) Vs. Marmagh Singh Sisodia and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ369
ORDERShacheendra Dwivedi, J.1. In this appeal, the order passed by the learned Eighth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior, on 26-9-1994 in Civil Suit No. 76/94 thereby directing the return of the plaint to the plaintiff/appellant for its presentation before the proper Court holding that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, is challenged.2. The suit is filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents on the allegations that for marrying his daughter, the appellant had a few rounds of talks with respondents 1 and 2 and the plaintiff liking the boy, i.e. respondent No. 1, had performed the bar Rukai (booking the boy for marriage) ceremony at Datia and thereafter respondents perform god Bharai (acceptance of girl as bride) ceremony at Gwalior. Thereafter the date of marriage was also fixed for which the plaintiff had made all arrangements. In that transaction he had sent the lagun (i.e. the intimation of the date of marriage) along with a draft of Rs....
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ramesh Malik Cit V. Smt. Kamini Malik ( ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-06-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(MP)479
TIWARI, J. :The applicant [CIT, Bhopal] has filed these seven reference applications as particularised above proposing three common questions of law under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act) seeking direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions of law as extracted below arising out of the order dt. 30th Oct., 1990 passed by the Tribunal in appeals :'(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has not misdirected itself in ignoring the show cause notice served under s. 274 of IT Act/10 of Compulsory Deposit Act by merely relying on the service of subsequent notice ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty instead of remitting it back to the Assessing Officer when the statutory notices were validly served and adequate opportunity was given to the assessee ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justifi...
Shiv NaraIn Shivhare Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (investi ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-1995
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(MP)365; [1996]222ITR620(MP)
A.K. Mathur, Actg. C.J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed that the respondents may be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,14,886 with interest.2. The petitioner is an assessee and he was assessed for tax liability by the respondent to the tune of. Rs. 1,45,710 vide assessment order dated March 27, 1989. The petitioner, being aggrieved against this order, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bhopal, and the Commissioner by his order dated March 7, 1990, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of interest under Section 67(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the respondent reassessed the income of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,04,070 by the assessment order dated April 11, 1991. The petitioner, in compliance with that order, deposited Rs. 50,943 by the challan dated December 13, 1989, and Rs. 72,000 by the challan dated December 20, 1989. The petitioner also deposited a...
Malua Alias Mulgiri Vs. Bhagwan Singh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-05-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ828
Fakhruddin, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 1.12.1992, passed by Mr. G.S. Rathore, Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri, in Claim Case No. 39 of 1988.2. The facts in the case are that on 30.3.1988 the appellant's elder brother Tularam was going on the Mohinisagar Dam Road to collect the earth. At that time, respondent No. 1, Bhagwan Singh, came by driving a dumper No. RJU 5831, rashly and negligently and dashed the appellant's brother, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died on the spot. The alleged vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. The appellant has claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The claim was contested by the respondents on various grounds.3. Mr. N.D. Singhal, learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant, contended that the deceased was 50 years of age and he was doing the work of earthenware. The Tribunal assessed Rs. 400/-...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Scientific Refractories
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-04-1995
Reported in: [1996]218ITR434(MP)
A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. The applicant (Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal), has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore, to state the case and refer the undernoted question to this court arising out of its order dated October 1, 1993, passed in I. T. A. No. 332/(Ind) of 1989 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing to allow continuation of registration even when Form No. 12 was not signed by all the partners personally ?'2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The non-applicant/assessee furnished Form No. 12 for continuation of registration for the assessment year 1985-86. The Assessing Officer found that the application seeking continuation of registration was not signed by three partners (Bipinkumar, Malayaketu and Smt. Shardadevi), He, therefore, examined the aforesaid partners. The Assessing Officer, was not satisfied about the...
Azad Bus Service Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1995
Reported in: [1996]218ITR635(MP)
S.B. Sakrikar, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, stated the case and referred the undernoted question for answer with reference to the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 13/ Ind of 1984 on the application of the applicant/assessee :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the unabsorbed depreciation of the firm for the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 at Rs. 88,101, Rs. 96,161 and Rs. 44,594, respectively, is allowable for set-off against the income of the assessment year 1981-82 ?'2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on the business of plying passenger buses. It had unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment year 1977-78, Rs. 88,101 ; assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 96,161 and assessment year 1979-80, Rs. 44,594. For the assessment year 1980-81, there was no unabsorbed depreciation but the assessee had a net loss of Rs. 10,000 after allowing depreciation. I...
R.K. Gupta Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1995
Reported in: 1997(1)MPLJ149
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. On account of certain acts of omission and commission, disciplinary proceedings were taken against the petitioner. Enquiry was held. The petitioner was found guilty. He preferred an appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. Copy of the order passed by the original authority is annexure P/9. The appellate order is annexure P/11. There is reduction of pay scale by two stages in the time scale. The original order as well as the appellate order are being challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner submits that the enquiry proceedings have been taken in breach of a circular referred to para 5 of the petition. In this it is stated that whenever a memo is issued to an officer calling for his explanation and the same is not found satisfactory, a charge-sheet is required to be issued within a period of ten to fifteen days but not later than six months. It is non-compliance of this aspect which is being challenged in this petition. It iss...
Mahadev Sailor Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-01-1995
Reported in: 1996(0)MPLJ386
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Trainee Officer. The period of training was fixed for one year. He was to be paid a consolidated stipend of Rs. 3400/-. On successful completion of the training the petitioner would have become entitled to employment with the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited i.e. the Authority, which had issued order, Annexure P-1, vide which the petitioner was appointed as Trainee Officer.2. The further fact is that during the period of one year it was found that the petitioner was not performing his duties as per the standards fixed by the respondent-Corporation. It is the case of the Corporation that on a number of times the petitioner was informed about his deficiency and with regard to unsatisfactory performance. The petitioner, however, did not improve. The requisite averments are made in paragraphs 2(a), (e), (f) and (g). This can be summarised as under :-For the period from 20th September 1992 to 6th November 1992 the petitioner was inf...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »